Confronted with the 592 pages of Domus Bolezlai: Values and Social Identity in Dynastic Traditions of Medieval Poland (c. 966-1138), most medievalists will choose to continue on, content in their ability to avoid discussion of the medieval Slavic world. I argue in my own work that this trend is a mistake, and Przemyslaw Wiszewski's work is a good example of why it is such a mistake. Domus Bolezlai is, admittedly, a book about tenth, eleventh, and twelfth century Polish history, but it is also a book that engages with a vast array of scholarship from throughout Europe and America and Wiszewski is clearly conversant with the dominant trends in analytical discourse and uses them to great effect. Thus, it is a book that should be read not only by Polonists, but by medievalists broadly as an example of ways in which historians and other scholars can and should read texts and use them as a way of attempting to elucidate medieval cultural and intellectual history.
Wiszewski's book, originally written in Polish and translated by Paul Barford (though this is only noted on the copyright page, and Barford is otherwise uncredited), is part of Brill's series East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 450-1450. This series, edited by Florin Curta, ranges widely in quality (note Nora Berend's review in TMR of Victor Spinei's volume in the series for an excellent example of the low end), but Wiszewski represents the best of what Brill can do, offering publication in English for a work that most publishers would pass on because of its subject matter, rather than its quality. What Wiszewski has done here is quite remarkable. He has methodically read every single source for the history of the Piast state in the period c. 966-1138. Not only that, but he then uses the latest scholarship in English, French, German, Russian, and Polish to analyze those texts and attempt to tease out, not only what they say about the Polish state, but about the creation of a "dynastic tradition" amongst the Piast ruling family. This includes scholarship on cultural and collective memory, from among others Jan Assman in German and Mary Carruthers in English, and he attempts to integrate his work into a much larger scholarship on these subjects. While I do not know that he accomplishes his goal of proving that there was, in fact, a tradition of collective memory among the Piasts of this period, especially one that was communicated to the broader populace, the journey is worthwhile in its explication of the sources and for his understanding of major issues in the creation of medieval identity.
Domus Bolezlai is broken down into an introduction, three main parts, and then a conclusion; to discuss the book, it is best to follow that framework. The introduction sets the stage for the work and is largely a masterpiece of historiography showcasing the work that has been done in this area and Wiszewski's place within it. Here he also sets out clearly the aim of his study, which is to "seek traces of, and if at all possible define the form of, the traditions of the Piast ruling house" (xv). He is also very careful here to define the terms under which he will be working: a focus on the Piasts, the Piasts as co-authors of many of the sources, limited in chronology, as well as limited in geography. The grandiose claims of other authors are (largely) not for Wiszewski who more commonly qualifies his work and his contribution with nice turns of phrase such as, "The role of the historian is a responsible one, but also a modest one--it is similar to the work of a translator who does society a service, but is never sure of the exactness of their translation" (xxix).
Part One deals with the many short sources which mention early Piast history. This section begins quite abruptly with a discussion of the Dagome Iudex. If you do not already know what that is, you will not find out here, as Wiszewski assumes a working knowledge of the text, as well as some of the historiography right from the beginning. That said, his analysis of the source is still solid, though even by his conclusion of that section one might be left confused, "The final results of our analysis of this written source has led to conclusions which differ from the conclusions that we might have expected from our review of the previous research" (11). Later in Part One, Wiszewski demonstrates an excellent grasp of a broad range of Latin sources, including an analysis of Thietmar of Merseburg's discussions of the Piasts. It was Thietmar who used the term, Domus Bolezlai, from which Wiszewski drew his title, and he spends time analyzing that phrase. The problem with it is that, as he himself notes, it is not a common phrase for Thietmar to use, though others such as Rodulf Glaber do use "House of X" to describe a royal or noble family. This discussion is quite interesting as are his hypotheses, though he admits they are conjectural and cannot be fully proven. One of the main claims to come out of Part One is the idea that the Piasts defined their kin structure narrowly to just a few family members. In analyzing the Psalter of Gertrude and the document of Legate Gilles, this is the conclusion that he comes to due to generalized references to the past such as, "'preserved with piety by him and all his grandfathers'" (90) as opposed to specific references to near kin (82). This claim will be echoed throughout the book, and become a key component of the conclusion. While it is well established that medieval elites marked out their chosen family within a larger kin structure through names and other techniques (as Wiszewski also notes), it goes too far to say that the use of non- specific familial designators such as "grandfathers" indicates a lack of concern for that level of kin relationship. In Rus', for example, the enthronement formula included some variation of the phrase, "I sit on the throne of my father and grandfather(s)." The non-specific nature of that was not relevant to an audience that understood it to mean a Riurikid (in this example) familial connection.
Part Two is, by far, the strongest and most interesting section of the entire work. It deals primarily with the Gesta Principum Polonorum attributed to Gallus Anonymous. This is the longest work of the period and the one that sets the end date of the book at 1138. Wiszewski himself describes the section accurately by saying that it "is a rather detailed and maybe for the taste of some readers what may be seen as an excessively scrupulous analysis of the significance of the contents of the work" (123). Though he is right, it is a fascinating elucidation of the text. He examines the chronicle as a "multi-voice[d]" text in which the Piasts played a role as authors, as well as Gallus Anonymous (143). He also talks here about the applicability of the chronicle to the early twelfth century, and raises questions about whether or not it is valid to use it as evidence for the tenth or even the eleventh centuries (155). Moreover, when faced with an interesting, but difficult passage of the text, Wiszewski goes to not only multiple extant manuscripts, but also the Polish, German, Russian, and English translations of the Gesta to see how those translators dealt with the material, returning to the theme of historian as translator (163, n.162). While largely excellent, there are occasional problems in this section as well (in addition to editing problems common throughout the book), such as the overly complicated analysis of certain passages such as the battle of Boleslaw III with a boar as allegory for a host of other issues (270- 71).
Part Three begins to move away from texts and into material culture and the application of some of those ideas of created tradition for which he has argued over the last few hundred pages. This is the weakest of the sections, as the author moves away from his forte of textual interpretation and analysis. A variety of problems arise because of this, including the introduction of Polish nationalism into the text. The discussion of the onomastics of the Piasts includes a defense of the lack of Christian names on the basis of the strength of local (read Polish) tradition (373). While this is a feature of his larger discussion, in context it also appears to be a defense against unnamed criticism of the lack of integration of Polish practice with that of Western Europe. This is especially true when paired with an example from slightly later in Part Three where the lack of a "national saint" for Poland is deftly explained away, though it is noted that their neighbors (specifically in Bohemia, Rus', Denmark, Hungary, and the German Empire) all had at least one (379-91). The careful analysis of Parts One and Two breaks down further here with the construction of an edifice of conjecture based upon "must/could have been" statements, as in the discussion of the Spear of St. Maurice (416-17). This is balanced at the end of the section by a return to equanimity in his discussion of Piast foundations where he is careful to avoid drawing large-scale conclusions and acknowledges that only "working hypotheses" can come from these discussions (522). It is this type of qualification that makes the majority of his work, even those parts with which the reader disagrees (or is simply unconvinced), so much better.
The conclusion of the book brings everything back together and while there is much that is satisfying here, there are also problems as various small points of conjecture from Parts One, Two, and Three are re-introduced as proven fact to reinforce the edifice of Piast tradition. He begins by stating that, "We are unable to give an answer to any of these questions which could claim to be incontrovertible" (525). Wiszewski then proceeds to introduce a "few hypotheses concerning the 'Piast tradition'," which include the idea that the Piast tradition was a unifier of Piast and "Polish" identity in the period under discussion as well as the idea that "Poland" was created in the year 1000, out of the typical medieval dynastic state (528-29). While I disagree with the lengths to which Wiszewski carries his conjecture, even here in the summation of his ideas on memory and tradition, he is careful to note that there are problems with the idea of the communication of such traditions through time and that the required close reading of the texts to discern such information might be leading the scholar down a textual or interpretive rabbit hole.
Though I do not accept the entirety of Wiszewski's claims, the journey that he takes the reader on through the sources for Polish medieval history is a fascinating one that demonstrates the author's own expertise in the sources, as well as clearly showing that Poland was participating in much larger European trends of politics, culture (and cultural creation), writing, and symbols. All of this makes this book a useful one for medievalists of all stripes--even if they do not study medieval Poland or know their Boleslaws from their Mieszkos.